The End Times Are Here

Pixel Counting Joins Film in Obsolete Bin
http://tinyurl.com/de4go

Can anyone recommend a good freezer?

--
It is not our patriotic duty to send children to be butchered & slaughtered
& to butcher & slaughter others every time a general or a politician gets a
hardon for a war. Rather, it is our patriotic duty to demand the highest
burden of proof to justify war. It is also our patriotic duty to hold
treasonous, corporate whore, war criminals accountable for their actions.

Kenmore

In article .com,
"Draco" wrote:

Kenmore

Sears?


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

seog wrote:

Pixel Counting Joins Film in Obsolete Bin
http://tinyurl.com/de4go

Can anyone recommend a good freezer?


I wouldn't worry about buying a freezer.

Pixels are reaching an "end" because the
current "megapixel" CCD/CMOS technology is
reaching it's limits. You can only cram so
many pixels on a sensor because they can
only get so small and most snaphooters are
only interested in 8x10 output or less.
That's why 8 mp is enough to satisfy the
consumer market and these guys will never
buy a better light.

While the present trend is for cheap digital
point and shoots, the fact Pogue ignores is
there are already about 250 million 35mm film
cameras in use in the US alone.

An interesting thing is the article acknowledges
some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since
digital cameras are and never have been cameras
at all. They're imaging scanners that have been
marketed as cameras and "photography."

"ABANDONING THE FILM LOOK -- Now that consumers are
comfortable with going all digital, camera companies
no longer feel compelled to mimic the size, shape and
features of film cameras. Today's cameras embrace
their electronic nature, taking on more radical looks
and talents.

You can see it in Kodak's startling-looking V570 camera,
which has two built-in lenses, each with its own sensor
(a nonzooming wide-angle lens and a 3X zoom lens). You
also see it in Sony's sleek hinged M2 slab, which has so
little resemblance to a camera, you have to explain it
to people. Canon has displayed prototypes with clear
acrylic bodies, giving you a transparent look into the
guts."

An interesting thing is the article acknowledges
some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since
digital cameras are and never have been cameras
at all.

Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph
and can be considered ART.

Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus:

An interesting thing is the article acknowledges some of the b.s.
behind digital marketing, since digital cameras are and never
have been cameras at all.

Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph
and can be considered ART.

newyawkcabbie[1]
Hey--you tryin' to do an end run around my (and UC's) "photography ain't
art" argument? Huh?
/newyawkcabbie


[1] Old-school, pre-Asian-immigrant takeover.


--
If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect
and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the
Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories,
then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—-
and neither possibility is a very comforting thought.

- Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

An interesting thing is the article acknowledges
some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since
digital cameras are and never have been cameras
at all. They're imaging scanners that have been
marketed as cameras and "photography."


Any device that gathers & stores light whose end product is a photograph is
a camera in my book. I was being somewhat factious about the freezer since
you are right, there are countless film cameras whose function in life is to
consume film but the time when a few Keepers of the Flame will be huddled
around a flickering enlarger lamp on a cliff overlooking the coast of
Portugal (obscure reference to Neanderthals) is not that far off. Maybe a
decade; maybe not. Bankruptcies can happen awfully quickly. I for one do not
intend to be the last one clinging by his fingernails but for now the wet
sloppy stuff gives me the best bucks to results ratio. When the only thing
left is Xiaopan 400 from China that's the time to jump.

The eternal holy grail of camera mfgs. is to make consumer cameras more &
more idiot proof since the supply of idiots is infinite and that's what
digital does a lot better than film. How soon before there's auto
composition?

Natural Light Black and White Photography
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/
-George-

seog spake thus:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

An interesting thing is the article acknowledges some of the b.s.
behind digital marketing, since digital cameras are and never have
been cameras at all. They're imaging scanners that have been
marketed as cameras and "photography."

Any device that gathers & stores light whose end product is a photograph is
a camera in my book.

Oh, but you don't understand how them's fighting words where T. Phillips
is concerned. Watch out!

Just for some more data points: dictionary.com, which is pretty
representative of English-language dictionary definitions in general,
has this to say about "camera":

1. An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a
lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through
which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive
film or plate.

2. The part of a television transmitting apparatus that receives the
primary image on a light-sensitive cathode-ray tube and transforms it
into electrical impulses.

Now, it's a fair bit of hair-splitting to make the case that a CCD (or
other photoelectronic sensor) is *not* covered by "photosensitive plate".

Plus, what do purists like T.P. have to say about TV cameras? That
they're not cameras either? But *everyone* calls them that. Which makes
the case for calling their digital still counterparts "cameras" even
more airtight: the definition practically specifies what they
do--transform an image into electrical impulses. (Never mind that
whoever wrote that definition was probably thinking of analog impulses
as opposed to digital.)

But--yawn--who cares? All this will be moot in a couple short years, and
TP's baying at the moon will just be a sound heard in the distance that
will make a very few people cock their heads and wonder what it is.


--
If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect
and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the
Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories,
then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—-
and neither possibility is a very comforting thought.

- Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:59:53 GMT, "seog" wrote:

How soon before there's auto composition?

Actually I'm thinking the PJ wedding photographers are just loving
that little Kodak with the multiple sensors and lenses. Just add a
200GB hard drive and they'll capture 2000~3000 images of poorly lit
subject (remember, can't use a flash !) that are poorly exposed and
composed.

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
An interesting thing is the article acknowledges
some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since
digital cameras are and never have been cameras
at all.

Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph
and can be considered ART.

The real objection Some People have is that words must be taken to
mean what they mean, in an original-intent sort of way. The etymology
of "camera" is that it means "room." This is rec.photo.dark_room_
after all. From the camera obscura descends the present day
camera. To be true to the spirit, the only real cameras are room-size.
As light-recording devices become smaller than rooms, they
become less truly cameras.

A Real Manly Photographer, therefore, must use at least an 8x10"
camera, which if not actually big enough to sleep in, can at
least be used to store one's lunch, and assorted knicknacks.
Real Womanly Photographers are allowed to use 5x7, not
because women can't muscle around an 8x10 (that would be
sexist) but because they tend to have more modest appetites,
hence more compact lunchboxes.

The inadequacy of digital "cameras" in this department
is quite clear.

Respecfully Submitted,
Ben